thurstonxhowell:jst3p: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?

To "adapt", in this case, means many people die.

Many people are dying in lots of parts of the world due to starvation already. Not to sound too cold hearted but are you talking about the acceleration of that process or dying of something else?

Mikey1969:It really sucks that we're in a warming trend. I moved out of Phoenix to get away from the farking heat, not to have it follow me. Salt Lake was supposed to be this nice, cooler version where it got to triple digits about 5 times a year, and by triple digits, I mean maybe 102...

Now it's one month into summer, and instead of 5 total days, we've gotten 7 in a row and aren't even close to the hot season.

Well, at least I don't have to live through a miserable, muggy Phoenix monsoon season where it will be 113 and 50% humidity, but no rain will actually fall in the city. As for the 118 temps, anything above 112 feels the same anyway: Too Farking Hot.

I could only wish for 50% humidity here in NC. We've had rain, heavy rain, for almost a week now each and every day, and the humidity level is well over 70%, over 90% in the early mornings. You go outside and it's like being hit in the face with a warm, damp washcloth, the air is so moist and sticky.

jst3p:Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?

Oh well, I guess if your only consideration is "will humanity adapt," I'm sure as a species we will, so will the raccoons and rats and crows and roaches.

But, we'll suffer through mass extinctions of many species, probably many many wars over resources as weather patterns change, famines, disease, revolutions, that sort of stuff. Check out what the CIA has to say about it. I mean, hell, we could just go full-bore nuclear right now and eliminate all emissions, but that would take twenty years if we started now, but that ain't gonna happen until Really Bad Things start happening more frequently, and there are obviously some issues about nuclear.

Farking Canuck:It's funny. Those of us who get our science from scientists are suggesting that people try and conserve, reduce pollution, reduce dependance on middle east oil, participate in the profitable green energy industry, try to shift our energy production to greener sources, etc. Stuff like that.

But people who get their science from politicians claim the ridiculous strawman that you have above. We for some reason want to give the UN world domination. It is idiotic ... but you puppets endlessly parrot it.

It is like the other lie that gets parroted - that we want to introduce "economy destroying" measures. Who believes this drivel? Who actually wants to destroy their own economy and what government would actually implement measures like this?

And then there's the Big Bad UN. Most Fark threads the UN is portrayed as a completely ineffective organization that can only send "strongly worded letters". But in AGW threads they are evil masterminds bent on WORLD DOMINATION. Muh huh ha ha ha ha.

Cathedralmaster:WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

Based on the "work" of Willis Eschenbach.

Because Willis Eschenbach controls the physics of CO2 heating and you can't find the physics elsewhere.Here, let's add the IPCC 6 degrees of heating to see what those experts expect:Yes, the IPCC number includes the water-vapor feedback, because most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. But somehow that feedback is going to get much worse than it has been throughout four billion years (yes, there's always been water, even when we had a rock atmosphere).

I enjoy sweating... like every minute of every day in a sauna. It makes me feel alive to have a skin temperature of 104 while maintaining a chilly internal reserve of 94.6 against the insurmountable odds. That's right Miami heat I said Fark you!/delirious like R. Pryor

Cathedralmaster:WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

Based on the "work" of Willis Eschenbach.

Willis Eschenbach, blogger with a certificate in massage and a B.A. in Psychology. Has worked recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. Has produced no peer-reviewed papers on climate science according to the criteria set by Skeptical Science.

To a degree (pardon the pun), yes. As the deniers like to preach, over and over, the climate has always been changing and we have always adapted.

The issue here is the rate of change. Adapting requires fast action and will costs huge money (much more than avoiding the problem would have). Some coastal cities are already committing billions of dollars to combat rising sea levels and the massive storm surges from deadlier storms. Other cities will not be able to build these defenses due to time or money constraints and they will suffer.

Climates are shifting so fast that species of plants and animals cannot migrate with them ... many are going extinct. If food production shifts north then we run into the problem that there is no soil on the Canadian shield ... it may get warm enough to grow but good luck growing anything there.

The fact is that those that can adapt will ... but the costs will be staggering. Those that cannot will suffer and there will be large losses of life.

I agree with those that believe that we've gone too far to avoid some serious impact. Making changes now may reduce the impact in the long term and likely shorten the duration so there are still good reasons to clean things up. But the deniers have had enough of an impact with their "Do Nothing!" movement that there will be pain.

Kirzania:Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

not collecting stamps:Ahh, the church of global warming climate change (is that still what we are calling it this week?). And the misguided and narcissistic belief that we can break the planet. The planet will be fine, when she is tired of us she will shake us off like fleas and start over, as she has done before. But go on pushing that junk science, have fun trying to convince people that your data means something!

You probably argue that it's OK for everybody to poop in the public swimming pool. It's misguided and narcissistic to think we can impact the swimming pool. The pool will be fine. After all, animals and fish have been pooping in bodies of water since long before humans came on the scene and we still have water, don't we?

/I know it's a troll but how often do you get to talk about pooping in the swimming pool?

Confabulat:Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

Denialism REQUIRES that the "feelings" of laymen are as valid as those of actual experts.

MrBallou:not collecting stamps: Ahh, the church of global warming climate change (is that still what we are calling it this week?). And the misguided and narcissistic belief that we can break the planet. The planet will be fine, when she is tired of us she will shake us off like fleas and start over, as she has done before. But go on pushing that junk science, have fun trying to convince people that your data means something!

You probably argue that it's OK for everybody to poop in the public swimming pool. It's misguided and narcissistic to think we can impact the swimming pool. The pool will be fine. After all, animals and fish have been pooping in bodies of water since long before humans came on the scene and we still have water, don't we?

/I know it's a troll but how often do you get to talk about pooping in the swimming pool?

The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you? Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

We only have reliable data so far in the past you know. No one was manning weather stations in 921 AD.

The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

What do I think will happen? Trees will use the CO2 to produce more oxygen and grow. When trees get bigger, they create more shade, which is a good thing. And we'll all be more alert because there's more oxygen. Thus proving global warming is a farce.

PC LOAD LETTER:And it's called climate change. The warming bit could be totally wrong and it still would suck.

Both terms are valid. "Global warming" is the trend affecting the overall planet. "Climate change" was coined as a response to all of the "LOL, just shoveled 2 feet of global warming off my driveway" comments from people who didn't realize that the global warming trend would not apply uniformly to every location and every day of the year.

The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you? Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

You wouldn't have even brought up this argument if you didn't. Stop lying.

The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you? Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

We only have reliable data so far in the past you know. No one was manning weather stations in 921 AD.

The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

What do I think will happen? Trees will use the CO2 to produce more oxygen and grow. When trees get bigger, they create more shade, which is a good thing. And we'll all be more alert because there's more oxygen. Thus proving global warming is a farce.

Cool! Can we please see your research and calculations? Because then we can all stop worrying about it. But I am definitely happy that you thought of this, because I'm sure no other climate scientists have ever even considered it.

Confabulat:Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

Oh, look. Another article clearly biased on climate change. T minus 2 days before a conflicting article comes out to disprove it. There are absolutely 0 people opposed to conserving energy, finding renewable energy, and furthering our research and technology. Climate change could have been about the science, but then politics had to get involved and suddenly it's about evil corporations, paid shills, ignorant people with no scientific knowledge having strong opinions about it and yada yada yada....

/This isn't what "political science" means guys...//Waiting for natural selection to be reinstated.

Cap and trade is BS. If you want to reduce smoking, you raise cigarette taxes. If you want to reduce gasoline consumption you raise gasoline taxes. If you want to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions you raise taxes on carbon-dioxide emissions.

Cap and trade is literally out of the Ayn Rand villain playbook. You grandfather the current emitters by capping them and then grating them emissions based on that cap. Existing coal burning industries get a big bundle of free emissions based on what they produce and startups based on say Natural Gas are forced to pay extra because they didn't exist.

A straight up CO2 emissions tax of $10 per ton or CO2 would raise about 50 billion in revenue at 2012 emissions levels and encourage a switch to other technologies.

teenytinycornteeth:I think you're being purposely obtuse. By 'break the planet' people mean 'make the planet unihabitable for animal and plant life', not that the planet itself will crumble. No one really gives a shiat what happens to this rock if all of us are dead.

And, it's actually very, very hard to destroy the Earth, but if you want some ideas, here's a handy list of some ways to do it.

Kirzania:Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Ooh. That's quite intellectually rigorous. Earth is warming "just 'cuz" - you should submit that for publication immediately and teach all those egghead moron scientists to start thinking about more obvious solutions to our problems.

genner:Confabulat: Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

DEEEEEERRRPPPPPPP.

Yeah, sweetie, there's just a TON of research money devoted to proving global warming. Everywhere I look, I see climatologists in Ferraris, graduate students with gold encrusted diamond suits. It's not that this is what the research shows, except for research conducted bypoil and coal companies.

The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you? Recorded historical temperatures are so infinitesimally small.

I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

I agree brother 100%.

I'll look forward to us both now being called luddite religious fanatic retards.

No, more like pedantic assholes. Most people have an inherent understanding of the time scales that these statement implicitly apply to and those who care find the scientific data and testable hypotheses used to extend temperature estimates back further interesting and scientifically (ie, formed and tested by collected data) compelling.

genner:The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

Nope. The only reason people distrust the scientific method is because morons don't like it when someone points out the facts show they are wrong. A scientist who could clearly show global warming wasn't happening would be an instant celebrity and get tons of money from the business interests that already invest money in denier campaigns.

WelldeadLink:Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

...Anthony Watts does not accept the basic physics. That's why he makes bullshiat graphs like this one.

netizencain:The concept of time baffles most people. Just like the reports of the hottest temperatures in Death Valley. Oh really, then tell me the temperature in Death Valley on July 1st, 921 AD. You can't... can you?

Well, no, I can't. Mostly because you asked for reported temperatures; pretty sure no one was keeping track of temperatures in Death Valley back then.